«

In article <>,
says...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
> <> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30)
> >> Port scan detected from address 206.204.10.200.
> >> Blocked further access for 30 minutes after detecting at
> >> least 6 ports being probed."
> >>
> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
> >>
> >> It appears that I must report abuse to:
> >>
> >>
> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
> >>
> >> So what can I do?
> >
> >Let's see,
> >host 206.204.10.200
> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
> >
> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
> >
> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/
>
> If that is correct then my mistake!
> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security
> check site.
>
> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>
> TIA.
>
>


you're an idiot.

go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
abuse....



--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:59:07 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<> wrote:

>In article <>,
> says...
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30)
>> >> Port scan detected from address 206.204.10.200.
>> >> Blocked further access for 30 minutes after detecting at
>> >> least 6 ports being probed."
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
>> >>
>> >> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
>> >>
>> >> So what can I do?
>> >
>> >Let's see,
>> >host 206.204.10.200
>> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
>> >
>> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
>> >
>> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/
>>
>> If that is correct then my mistake!
>> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security
>> check site.
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>
>
>you're an idiot.

Hey everone makes mistakes!
I did not know it was symantec's ip!

>go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
>I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
>abuse....

--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}


-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----

In article <>, "Colonel Flagg"
<> wrote:

> In article <>,
> says...
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30) Port scan detected from
>> >> address 206.204.10.200. Blocked further access for 30 minutes after
>> >> detecting at least 6 ports being probed."
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
>> >>
>> >> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>> >>
>> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
>> >>
>> >> So what can I do?
>> >
>> >Let's see,
>> >host 206.204.10.200
>> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
>> >
>> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
>> >
>> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/
>>
>> If that is correct then my mistake!
>> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security check site.
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>>
>
> you're an idiot.

I have already posted a response. I have no idea why it has not appeared.
Any way all I said was that everyone can make a mistake.

I did not know the ip belonged to symantec.

Now I am posting this from linux I just hope this appears!

>
> go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
> I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
> abuse....
>
>
>

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:22:36 +0530, Ravi wrote:

> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>
> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?

I do not remember the commands to check if the email account is valid.

You report abuse to the ISP who owns the offending ip address.

If it comes from a business, I contact them first, if it continues,
then I contact their ISP.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:11:55 GMT, Bit Twister
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:22:36 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
>> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>
>I do not remember the commands to check if the email account is valid.
>
>You report abuse to the ISP who owns the offending ip address.
>
>If it comes from a business, I contact them first, if it continues,
>then I contact their ISP.

I got this information:

OrgName: ConXioN Corporation
OrgID: CONX
Address: 4201 Burton Drive
City: Santa Clara
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 95054
Country: US

NetRange: 206.204.0.0 - 206.204.255.255
CIDR: 206.204.0.0/16
NetName: CONXION
NetHandle: NET-206-204-0-0-1
Parent: NET-206-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS2.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS3.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS4.CONXION.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-07-17
Updated: 2002-12-19

AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
AbuseName: Abuse
AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
AbuseEmail:

TechHandle: CO-ORG-ARIN
TechName: ConXioN
TechPhone: +1-408-566-8500
TechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-12-01 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS
database.

OrgName: ConXioN Corporation
OrgID: CONX
Address: 4201 Burton Drive
City: Santa Clara
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 95054
Country: US
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-04-19
Updated: 2001-12-17

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-12-01 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS
database.

So I think the abuse address is right? And actually there is
no mention of symantec.

--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:41:15 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>>>
>>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>
> AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
> AbuseName: Abuse
> AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
> AbuseEmail:
>
> So I think the abuse address is right?

Well the abuse is a valid ip address alright.

> And actually there is no mention of symantec.

You are correct.
symantec has the ip address.
You asked who was the ISP provider for symantec's ip address.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:40:56 GMT, Bit Twister
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:41:15 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>>> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>>>>
>>>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>>
>> AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
>> AbuseName: Abuse
>> AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
>> AbuseEmail:
>>
>> So I think the abuse address is right?
>
>Well the abuse is a valid ip address alright.

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status
Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed
due to a permanent error.

<>:
12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <>... User
unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.


>> And actually there is no mention of symantec.
>
>You are correct.
>symantec has the ip address.
>You asked who was the ISP provider for symantec's ip address.

--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:46:25 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
><>:
> 12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <>... User
> unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.

You are correct, it is broke. Maybe conxion.net outsouced
it offshore.

Maybe you could goto http://www.conxion.net and see if there is a
place to tell them about the email problem. Or thy mailing them a
letter.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:26:16 GMT, Bit Twister
<> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:46:25 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>
>><>:
>> 12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
>> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <>... User
>> unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.
>
>You are correct, it is broke. Maybe conxion.net outsouced
>it offshore.

Ok. You appear to be posting from:
United States
California
Los Angeles

Is that correct?

Why have you not set your tz to
-08:00
?


>
>Maybe you could goto http://www.conxion.net and see if there is a
>place to tell them about the email problem. Or thy mailing them a
>letter.


--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:21:32 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
> Ok. You appear to be posting from:
> United States
> California
> Los Angeles
>
> Is that correct?

Ummm, I posted from 24.1.212.248. Dallas TX.

> Why have you not set your tz to
> -08:00

My clock says
date
Tue Dec 23 23:01:09 CST 2003

of if you like
date --utc
Wed Dec 24 05:01:39 UTC 2003

Do you think the time you see is the time the newsserver has???